Britons are legally entitled to a referendum on Juncker appointment, says George Osborne's father-in-law

Lord Howell of Guildford - who is the father of Mr Osborne's wife Frances -
suggests that the way Mr Juncker was put in post amounted a shift in powers
from Westminster to the European Union

Lord Howell of Guildford - who is the father of Mr Osborne's wife Frances - suggested that the way Jean-Claude Juncker was appointed to his post amounted to a shift in powers from Westminster to the European Union.Photo: AP

Britons should be given a vote on the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Unon, George Osborne’s father in law has said.

Lord Howell of Guildford - who is the father of Mr Osborne's wife Frances - suggested that the way Mr Juncker was appointed to his post amounted to a shift in powers from Westminster to the European Union.

The peer, a former adviser to foreign secretary William Hague, said that this meant in law there should be subject to a referendum under the 2011 European Union Act.

The law – passed by the Coalition months after the last election – was meant to stop the UK losing powers to the European Union by using a referendum 'lock'.

It said that any transfer of power to Brussels should only go ahead if it was put to a vote of the country in a referendum.

Lord Howell told peers in the House of Lords: “There has clearly been a transfer of power or competence, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, to an EU institution from national Governments.

“What is the position under the European Union Act 2011, in particular under Section 4(1) - paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) - which I had the privilege of guiding through this House at the time?”

Lord Hill, the Leader of the House of Lords who had been making a statement on last week’s Brussels summit, said that given Lord Howell “took the Bill through and enacted it, and I am sure he knows it far better than I do”.

He added: “My understanding is that the Act applies to changes in the rules that transfer power from Westminster to Brussels.

“In this instance, we believe that the existing rules were pushed to shift power from the European Council to the European Parliament rather than any fresh transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels.

“That is the distinction. It did not represent a further transfer of power from Westminster.”

Lord Hill added: “If I have got that wrong, I will make that clear to my noble friend in a letter that I will circulate to the House and place in the Library.

Bill Cash MP, chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, said: “David Howell is extremely well informed and guided the Bill through the House of Lords.

“Acquiescing in a procedure which does not have any treaty legitimacy raises serious questions – the question is whether that amounts to a transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels is another issue which the courts could resolve.”

Mats Persson, from campaign group Open Europe, added: “It’s true that this amounts to an effective transfer of powers in that EU leaders gave up their collective veto over who becomes Commission President, which represents a net loss of powers for David Cameron.”

But he said that the UK had already lost its power to veto the Commission President appointment under a previous treaty.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "The EU Act 2011 means that there's a referendum when the rules change and power is shifted from the UK to the EU. The rules haven't changed but they have been abused."